Littleton STEM Academy

  1. PLC Story
  2. PLC Practices
  3. Achievement Data
  4. Awards
  5. Resources

                                               The PLC Story

     There are many unique things about Littleton STEM Academy. It is the original and oldest school in the district, it is the only outdoor campus, it has a computer coding focus and is the only school that has an onsite preschool in the district. Unfortunately the school has struggled with frequent leadership changes and high staff turnover for many years which has caused it to be the lowest performing school in the district on state and district assessments. A culture of low self and collective efficacy has led to misguided misperceptions of the students, staff and the community associated with it.

      Our PLC journey started in 2018 and it can be broken down into three parts. Part one we will call the implementation from 2018 to 2020. Part two is called the recommitment 2020 to present. Part three will be called next steps and beyond because we feel as though our PLC journey will never end and is ever evolving. In totality, our journey has been a beautiful one that had challenges, failures and successes. We are pleased with our work and efforts and wouldn’t change one part of our journey. We know that it has shaped our school to be the community it has matured to be today. We hope our story inspires others to hang tough, stay the course and persevere through the ups and downs.

Part 1 – The Implementation

     In 2018 our district introduced the PLC philosophy to the schools. The first thing the school was tasked to do was identify a guiding coalition. The guiding coalition that was identified were a group of individuals that were self-selected (there was no formal criteria that was used to select these individuals). Professional development at the district level was provided with regard to the three big ideas, four pillars and four driving questions. The guiding coalition was tasked to cascade the new learning and next steps that they acquired from the district office to the school site. The work that was brought back to the school was driven by the administrative team. The action plan that was developed and used did not have staff involvement and the guiding coalition played no role in it either. The documents used to begin the process were taken from the book Learning by Doing and implemented in a literal sense; internalization and ownership of the process was not present. The collaborative teams used the four guiding questions and an unwrapping document to facilitate discussions. There was no purpose setting or framing of what the collaborative teams should look like and sound like. Staff members were given the documents and expected to incorporate them into their practices. Collaborative teams were expected to submit completed documents to administration. As time passed, administration found that documents were not being entered properly or submitted. The administrative team decided to model a fishbowl activity using the documents in front of the staff in order to model how the documents should be used and what a collaborative team should look like and act like. After this model, the administrative team rolled out a checklist the collaborative teams were to use to check off that they completed during their collaborative team time. Teams began to turn away from the process and felt as though the things they were required to do was busy work. Assessment scores and growth continued to be low and morale dropped. Teams were compliant and went through some of the motions for the next two years with little to no impact on the work of the school.  

Part 2 – The Re-commitment

           In 2020 the new administration took over the school. An assessment of the current reality took place about the PLC process. It was determined that a successful implementation was necessary and a new commitment needed to be made. In the summer of 2020 the world shutdown due to COVID. COVID caused us to operate differently from the way we were accustomed to. Everything went to an online format. Implementing learning communities in our traditional brick and mortar format is challenging enough, now shift to the online medium that none of us were used to, it created a conundrum for us. We sought to systematically approach this challenge. Our first step was to identify our teacher leaders on campus that we saw had the influence, competence and character to lead their teams with this new way of approaching their work. Once we identified these individuals, they became our guiding coalition. We developed a schedule in the summer to do what we called our “PLC Institute Training” for our teacher leaders. We used the month of June and trained for four weeks, two days a week for four hours each session. We used Zoom as our space to learn and grow. We took advantage of breakout rooms and collaborative applications such as Google to allow for engagement with each other and the work that we were creating. For three weeks we went through chapter by chapter of the entire book Learning By Doing. We set purpose, we framed the work, and we discussed, modeled and practiced the tools and resources that were available to them. We introduced the simultaneously tight and loose environment for the staff to work within the PLC process. The final week of our summer institute our staff members developed their plan for rollout to their teams. We provided feedback to teams and teams had the opportunity to provide feedback to each other. When we started pre-service we did professional learning for the entire staff about the three big ideas, four pillars, four guiding questions, use of documents and protocols. We shared how we would support staff through professional learning throughout the school year and how we would observe their collaborative teams and use a rubric to provide cyclical feedback to them to assist their growth and understanding. We gave teams’ time to process and digest the learning and our team leaders worked on setting the collaborative team foundation during this time with building a shared knowledge around norms, agendas, common formative assessments, data protocols etc…. We built a schedule that allowed teachers to engage with their collaborative teams for two hours every Wednesday as well as mandatory planning time for an hour on Monday and Tuesday. Teams held their business meetings on Friday’s. We continued to develop our guiding coalition leaders’ bi-weekly for an hour each session. We did two book studies From Me to We and Enriching the Learning, both books written by Michael Roberts. The book studies helped with deepening our leaders’ knowledge of what the work was all about and our development sessions gave us an opportunity to grow as a community within the process. We continued to provide feedback to our leaders in regard to what we were seeing across our collaborative teams. We did professional developments around teaming, norms, unwrapping documents, data protocols, formative assessments, student justifications, analyzing data and so on. All these professional learning sessions allowed staff members to build their capacity and make connections with collaborative teams and the new way of doing work. We started to see slow growth with students as we engaged in the work in 2020. Staff members were planned and prepared for their work and were using assessment data as a way to inform their next steps. We were clear with what essential standards were and were able to use the appropriate resources and strategies to instruct our students. We were able to do this because of the rich discussions taking place in the collaborative teams.

     It was a smooth transition out of the pandemic and the digital world back to brick and mortar. We shifted our schedule slightly, but the time remained for our collaborative teams to connect as well as separate planning and business meetings. When we entered year two 2021 of the recommitment phase, we wanted to focus on question three and four (interventions and extensions). As we approached the summer, we used the same process we used the previous summer to build capacity with our school leaders. We added additional team members for this learning because we wanted to have a larger foundation with the new work. This time around we used the book Response to Intervention. We systematically approached development with our staff. Since we had become well versed in using the digital medium to facilitate professional development, we did so again. We used Zoom and all its tools to facilitate learning. We made sure that the learning was social, engaging, and visible with artifacts and readings as well as learning protocols that were used to support our growth. We used the month of June and trained for four weeks, two days a week for four hours each session. The last week was for our teacher leaders to develop their RTI plan as well as receive feedback from each other in order to refine their plans. We used the same practice as the previous year when it came time during our preservice to review what RTI (Response to Intervention) is and what its purpose is and then gave our leaders the chance to talk and collaboratively develop their implementation plans. We continued development of our leaders, but looked to add other staff members to our leadership development team. We found that staff members were shifting from compliance to ownership because they were beginning to adjust their protocols to better meet their needs. They were also seeing growth in their students as well as growth as a team with their effectiveness and efficiency to analyze data, and develop next steps. We expanded our successes from the PLC process to incorporating instructional rounds. We selected through the data a problem or practice (academic conversations). We did rounds in classrooms as collaborative teams and engaged in rich discussions around our problem of practice. We made connections to our collaborative teams and our teams incorporated the problem of practice discussions into their collaborative team time. In year two, we evolved in our ability to provide feedback to our teams. We acquired technology called a SWIVL. This device allowed us to record our collaborative teams. We used these recordings to share with our leaders to facilitate discussions and learning. We also used it to provide feedback to those teams. It was a great resource because it gave us the opportunity to provide feedback to a majority of our teams each week. We were never concerned with not being a part of the collaborative teams and their work because we were always able to view and keep pace with their work as well as share timely, specific and targeted feedback on their work.

     We have seen our students develop a sense of agency because of the advantage we took of being timely, specific and targeted with our formative assessments and feedback. Our teachers have developed their own sense of self-efficacy and collective-efficacy because of their rich discussions, analysis of student data, development of action plans and the vulnerability they have learned to embrace. Our professional learning has been strong and intelligent. We are able to take advantage of the collaborative community that has developed through the professional learning community process which has allowed us to see staff comfortable with being vulnerable  and sharing effective practices with each other. This is the only way we know how to engage in learning with each other. The best outcome that has come from becoming a true Professional Learning Community is our strong collaborative culture . Seeing teachers understand the power of relationships and getting comfortable with reaching out if they have challenges or opening up to share with each other unsolicited has been a beautiful experience for us. We have teachers that have developed interventions and extensions unsolicited from the administrative team. Our k-4 teachers facilitate a “Walk to Read” program on campus that uses a screener to assess our students, the teachers identify the skill and resources they will use to work with a group of students intensely for approximately six weeks, re-assess to see growth, then convening  to celebrate successes, analyze data and regroup based on their results has been beautiful to witness the positive impact it has had on our students’ reading scores. The same positive impact  happened with our middle school team. They were not to be out done. They reached out to the elementary teachers and asked about their process and then developed their own systematic process called “Step to Success”. This is where we are at now. We have teachers’ collaborating across grade levels and the school to support each other. Our focus has become all about what is best for our students.

     Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not mention our preschool team. Preschool is a bit different because they have guidelines that they need to satisfy for the state so they are a bit different than the rest of the school. This team of professionals went through a journey themselves (forming, storming, norming and performing) to assess the work of a PLC collaborative team and have developed practices and processes that allow for them to grow their work. They have some wonderful resources and the way that they track and analyze their data is at a very deep level. The PLC process has brought life back to the work that we do as a school. I would like to add that each year starting in (2021) we sent a group of teachers (6 people) to the PLC Summit when they were in town. We were strategic in asking them to bring back new learning. The first group of teachers came back and refined the PLC rubric that we use to provide feedback to our collaborative teams. The second team of teachers (2022) that went came back and implemented an awareness around wellness. Now we have wellness posters, accountability partners, goals around wellness, quarterly professional learning around wellness and we have an understanding around what a hurried and busy life is and where we need to sit on the quadrant to be in a balanced place in our lives.

Part Three – Next Steps and Beyond

     There are many things that we aspire to do, but we also know that this is not a race, it is a never-ending journey. We will seek to enhance the role of our Special Education Teachers. They will engage in a collaborative team and discuss their students, strategies, goals and will use this data to engage in professional growth as well as prevention strategies in tier 1 to positively impact student learning. The Resource Teachers will work on a rotation to join collaborative teams as agenda items to provide support for interventions for students who need additional support due to their gaps. We want to see about adding our Gifted Teacher as well. We share her with another campus, but we would like for this individual to engage in extension activity development with the different teams during unit development so teams have well thought out extensions built in before each unit begins. Our Reading Interventionist can be a resource providing strategies, resources as well as helping with the analysis of data and the development of action plans. We want to build such a strong process that it becomes a lifestyle for our team members (we want staff to be married to this way of life). When we talk about our school, we want the PLC process to be a part of our everyday being at Littleton STEM Academy. These are just a few immediate aspirations on the horizon for us and we are excited to keep moving forward.

     In closing, our retention in 2021 was 89% and in 2022 it was 94%, staff morale is up, the culture is healthy and we are happy with our work. We applaud the staff for their bravery to shift their way of work, their vulnerability to take on the unknown and their perseverance through the journey. Go Firebirds!

                      

 

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

     Over the years there has been a new curriculum purchased district wide for all of the subject areas, which has led to professional development as a whole district around the programs. Through the learning and rollout on our campus we lost the focus around teaching to the standards, instead our teachers were teaching to the curriculum and not even looking at standards. When professional learning communities were introduced to our teams, things like agendas and unwrapping the standards were just viewed as things they had to do before getting to the real planning. After the reboot around professional learning communities and setting the purpose around unwrapping, and developing CFA’s we began to develop a new understanding around guaranteed and viable curriculum. In our journey we have modified our unwrapping document three different times to meet the needs of our teachers and students as we have grown in our capacity. For each of these unwrapping documents, we have provided professional learning, support and feedback to develop their proficiency in utilizing the unwrapping document to grow their capacity in understanding the standards to develop their curriculum. Through each shift in the document we dove deeper into the process.  We started with the circling of nouns and underlining of verbs and talking about what prerequisite skills they might need to overcome any misconceptions. Our teams then advanced from just unwrapping standards to the Essential Standards Unit Plan. Where teams began to discuss how long they will need to teach each standard, then developed success criteria needed for mastery, and  finally thinking about strategies and activities to implement based on the tiers of instruction. Now in our third modification, we have added to the unwrapping and Essential Standards Unit Plan to start first with importance and clarity of each learning target, to what depth of knowledge that target goes to, how long each target should take to teach and finally, assess for mastery.  Through using this new tool we are now able to develop a guaranteed and viable curriculum that is driven by our standards in each of our teacher teams and assessed through our CFA’s. Our data across the collaborative teams has shown their growth in this process, but as we go into the summer of 2022 we are growing our practices around developing unit plans. Our teacher teams will focus on using the unwrapping to group essential skills into units that has pre test data, learning targets assessed with the tier 1 preventative intervention and extension plan built in through the use of CFA’s,  as well as, a unit assessment at the end to determine the tier 2 needs of their students. Through these shifts we anticipate seeing a stronger alignment in tier 1 instruction to increase our student achievement. 

     As a school we collect multiple data points. Each data point is used to make informed decisions around tier 2 and 3 needs as well as using it to prepare for effective tier 1 instruction. An example of this district data point our teacher teams monitor is, the Pre-tests and quarterly interims for ELA and math. We monitor these data points through quarterly data chats with each teacher team on campus where they share their data and how it is driving their next steps in the tiers of instruction to support their students' learning and success. One key piece in the monitoring that has helped in building teacher ownership in the processes is celebrating the successes as a team and with their students.  Our staff and students are now eager to know how they perform on the assessments, as well as, how they do in comparison to other schools in our district. We celebrate these successes in our professional learning opportunities, in our classrooms and now with families.

     When it comes to our campus we have added additional layers of monitoring student learning. Our first step in that journey was the development of a data tracking sheet around two data lenses, qualitative vs. quantitative. Within this google sheet we have documented the demographics, district data points, CFA’s and recorded the will and skills of the students.  We continue to update them each year in our PLC journey.  The next layer of monitoring student learning is through instructional rounds driven by our school wide problem of practice (academic conversations). These instructional rounds give our teachers an opportunity to see other teachers on our campus and develop an action plan in rolling out new learning with students to track their progress with our problem of practice . Through our monthly instructional rounds we have also developed professional learning around academic conversations which occurs in a two week cycle where teachers take their learning back to their rooms to implement. At the follow up professional learning they bring back work to showcase students growth in their skills. The final layer in our monitoring of student progress for our teacher teams is driven by CFA data, team and school SMART goals. In this final layer we provide dedicated time each week for teacher teams to collaborate in looking at data, developing action plans and finding resources to intervene and extend the students' learning. Through our journey in monitoring students' learning we have refined our data protocol three times in the last two years. First, we looked at data through the lens of fame scores (Falls Far Below, Approaches, Meets and Exceeds- these are our performance bands) and how many kids were in each fame category and answering the 4 questions. Then we shifted into looking at the data in a lens of basic skills being assessed and who got the questions right or wrong but still keeping the 4 questions. Through our work with John Hannigan we made the final shift we are using right now, which looks at the data through three different lenses: total students proficient on the assessment by standard, student results by classroom, and student results  by the learning targets within the standard.  We also modified the 4 questions to begin to look at the impact of our instructional decisions, practices and strategies have on the results to deepen conversations and shift the focus on the growth of teachers to impact on student achievement. With the shifts each time comes the training, support, and feedback given to the teacher teams to grow and develop the ownership of the tool in effectively monitoring student learning and informing their instructional practices. 

2. Creating systems of intervention to provide students with additional time and support for learning.

     In deepening our work with students we committed to working to address the learning gaps and needs of our students using the training and knowledge gained from our work with the PLC process as a whole, PLC Summit learning, book studies and our Solution Tree coaches. Providing our students instruction that targets their needs by skill has been our focus for the past two years in building a strong foundation and system for student intervention and enrichment. As shared in the PLC story section, the campus had the concept that PLC was an event, a checklist or items to do versus the rich product of collaboration and building teams to impact student learning prior to the shift in administration beginning in the 20-21 school year.  During this initial year the focus of the summer work was around building a common understanding with the processes needed to build a successful learning environment. We focused several learning sessions on unpacking the standards, creation of learning targets, and building CFA’s using our Illuminate testing platform along with alignment of standards and items assessed and taught. We continued this focus during the year to have the whole campus working collaboratively on these items and creating opportunities for small group instruction as well to support students who were not meeting the projections on the CFA’s. As our teams began to shift as did our students' performance, even those who stayed virtual, were able to see some growth as a result of the beginnings of the campus implementation. This was supported by our book studies using Michael Roberts' books From Me to We and led us to Enriching the Learning to determine next steps in our planning process. The focus for our teams during summer learning was around small group work and being even more intentional and strategic with interventions, extensions and enrichments for our students. This process provided the teachers with the groundwork knowledge needed to begin to address intervention in a systematic way, as previously there was not a system in place. As the master schedule was built to ensure that all students in K-4 had tiered phonics instruction, Walk to Read, built into the reading block and PD time for teachers to become trained in implementing and supporting students on the various skills to target to intervene and enrich with ELA.  The master schedule additionally was crafted to provide grade level teams with common intervention time to support with reteaching of concepts and enriching daily during the 20-21 school year. Teachers worked to build their skills with data discussions, tracking and learning to address students needs as individuals in small group instruction, which was a new process built from our focus on the PLC process and really working to build a strong foundation for student success around the RTI process based on both our qualitative and quantitative data. 

     To build off of that work in supporting teachers in providing targeted interventions and extensions for all students we created targeted development opportunities for our 21-22 summer learning around interventions and extensions with our collaborative team leaders. We looked at how the campus was currently providing small group instruction, what teams were more consistent and which needed support. K-5 was more consistent and middle school had more struggles around how to group, what to intervene on and what to have others do when working on/in groups. This was shared as a need by teachers as we have begun the work in the previous year with addressing and planning time for interventions and extensions into the master calendar and daily schedule for all as well as our building the knowledge base around CFA’s, tiering of instruction and providing small group instruction in tier 1. We ended the 20-21 year with using our learning to develop a skill vs will process and documents that allowed teams to identify students' individual strengths, skills, gaps, needs and interests to create targeted interventions and extensions using the systems created in the previous year. 

     Through the refinements notes and work continuing development around interventions and extensions needed to drive student learning, the team leads were able to understand tiers and interventions around tier 1 vs tier 2 as well tier 3 not being just the route to special education.  We were able to build choice board menus for those not working in small groups as well as looking at the varied types of extensions and enriching opportunities for all students to increase and sustain motivation.  This work provided a strong foundation for our leads to share with teams the work, action plan items and how to implement and refine small group instruction designed to impact our students with quality tier 1 instruction as well as intervening and extending based on student results. We continued our learning and development opportunities with the whole staff with targeted development around these topics during our first semester. Instructional rounds also were implemented in the 21-22 school year which supported this focus and truly allowed teachers to learn from each other and see in real time teachers who were implementing and having success with the small group instructional strategies and tier 1 & 2 interventions showcased in our development learning. Through this the process began to take hold as now teachers were able not only to hear and see strategies in learning but really process how they looked and sounded with our kids on our campus. Second semester focused on refining this process as teachers were seeing how it worked, the success and shift in student work by being able to target needs and what that additionally did for student motivation which continued the momentum we had going on our journey. Our interim and CFA data continued to show growth campus wide and particularly in our lower grades with phonics and reading increases. This prompted our middle school to begin to discuss how our K-4 teachers were implementing the Walk to Read process and worked to create a middle school option, Step to Success. With this the teachers have reached out with needs for support in phonics instruction with our interventionist. The team has begun the process and are working with the system this year to look at areas to target and refine to begin the process with our 22-23 school year to ensure all our students have targeted interventions, extensions and we are enriching our students learning throughout the process by addressing their needs skill by skill as a whole child.

     We are excited for the 22-23 school year where we have empowered teams to work on items during the summer session that will continue to drive this work forward and have layered on targeted committee work to support our growth and development around student agency in the process to build our communication with families and build student advocacy around their skills and needs. We believe that this is the right work for our students and supports our journey in being able to provide the rich and targeted student learning environment that our community deserves. As showcased with our supporting documentation our data is shifting drastically, and we are showing growth in the time that we have worked to build our strong system around questions 3 and 4, how do we intervene or how we extend the learning. The process will continue to be refined based on our teachers input, our continued focus on the process as our driver of learning and passion for doing what we know is proven and best for all students. 

    

3. Building teacher capacity to work as members of high performing collaborative teams that focus efforts on improved learning for all students.

     We are extremely pleased with how we approached building capacity. We first identified our teacher leaders on campus. We focused on individuals who had influence, strong relationships and an exceptional dedication to their craft and students. We then used summertime to build capacity with our teacher leaders in our summer training. We used the Learning by Doing book to support building background knowledge and laying purpose. During that time teacher leaders had the opportunity to develop their implementation plan and share with each other for feedback. 

     When we started the year during pre-service, we laid the foundation for professional learning communities through the three big ideas, four pillars and four critical questions. We gave teams the opportunity to use that information which provided the staff a common language and understanding of what the new way of us doing work would look like and then gave them time to work as collaborative teams on the foundational pieces such as goals, norms, data protocols and accountability protocols. When the school year started we continued to meet with our teacher leaders every other week for one hour. We did two book studies – From Me to We and Enriching the Learning, both books written by Michael Roberts. These books deepened our leaders’ understanding with the PLC process. Each time we gathered with the leaders we would provide feedback across campus about the PLC process in the form of reinforcements and refinements. This way staff members were aware of the school’s progress with this process. We also engaged in whole staff professional development. We did professional learning on teaming (from groups to teams), assessments, unwrapping standards, developing norms, goal setting, analyzing data, identifying essential standards and response to intervention. We made sure to observe collaborative teams and provide them with specific, targeted and timely feedback (on all team agendas they were to give the observer 5 minutes to provide feedback). 

     We used a rubric that was created by our school around the three big ideas and four critical questions. Using a rubric allowed for us to provide feedback that was not subjective, but objective. It also provided the staff the chance to assess their own progression and they could use it to improve effectiveness. We sought to observe collaborative communities every two to three weeks. We would not only provide verbal feedback, but we would also document their feedback in a digital PLC binder that was created for all teams. This way there was a place that the feedback lived and a place where teams could go back to see their progress. We purchased equipment called SWIVL’s. This technology allowed us to record collaborative teams. We were now able to use the recorded sessions as tools to teach. We would use these recordings in our teacher leadership meetings to have discussions about what we saw. We would have those discussions driven by essential questions. This also allowed us to be able to expand our view of collaborative teams and we were able to provide feedback to more teams. We had a better understanding of the pulse for our learning communities. 

     As time went on we evolved and expanded the way we developed our staff. We had access to Global PD which has a wealth of resources that we used. We specifically would view videos at staff meetings and then engage in discussions around how the topic applied to our work and what reinforcements and refinements did we see and would apply to our work. We also assigned Global PD videos with essential questions for teams to view and discuss in their business meetings. We sent teams of teachers to the PLC Summit when it came to our city. We would sit with the team of teachers that would be going to the summit and strategically look at the agenda and assign teachers to specific breakout sessions and then have them meet after their sessions to discuss what resonated with them and thoughts on things to bring back to the campus. The first year our team came back to the campus to refine the PLC rubric that we had created to better meet our needs. The second year our team brought back a focus on wellness. We shifted and started developing our teacher leaders with leadership competencies (some of these competencies included, facilitating meetings, building trust, time management, collaborating). We also added to the teacher leader group because there were other leaders that were ready and willing to take on the additional responsibility. This allowed us to expand how we were developing our staff. The expectation that was shared with our teacher leaders has always been to cascade their learning to their colleagues. The new learning that they were receiving was to never live and die with them. We began having data chats with teams semesterly to discuss reinforcements and refinements around their collaborative process and this allowed for us to provide feedback as well as see how their reflective journey was going. 

     A highlight we feel collaborative teams engaged in through our PLC journey was the implementation of our instructional rounds. We identified a problem of practice (Academic Conversations – this selection was driven by observations and data). We found that the rich conversations we were able to have as teams was because of our work in collaborative teams through professional learning communities. Our teams were able to cascade the instructional rounds into their collaborative team work and they were able to see how students were responding to the strategies that they were using based off of the formative assessment results they analyzed. This was evidence of our level of understanding of the process which was that we engage in professional learning all the time and not in spots.

     Our teachers act and speak the language of a professional learning community school which provides clarity when it comes to student learning, a high level of collaboration because they value the fact that learning is a social event, not an isolated one and they have a laser-like focus on data. They understand that the data is to inform and not to be weaponized. Go Firebirds!

To view our timeline for this work, please look under the resources tab and find the document titled "Mission, vision, goals, values and timeline for building shared knowledge"

 

2 National Board Certified Teachers 

2020 & 2021 District Red Carpet Customer Service Award 

2017 District Adminstrator of the Year 

2021 Amazon Project STEM Grant 

2021 Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grant: $800,000

2019 Verizon Innovative Learning Grant 

2019 1st Place in Westside Impact Regional Science Fair 3rd and 4th 

2019 1st Place in Westside Impact Regional Science Fair 5th and 6th 

2022 1st Place in District Science and Engineering Fair 3rd and 4th 

 

Top